Abstract
The two major global immunization agenda framings (Missed Opportunity for Immunisation (MOI) vs. Immunisation Defaulting) are interchangeably and inappropriately used in public health research and practice, with flawed or misleading strategies recommended and adopted in various settings around the world. This is demonstrated by the fact that many opportunities to incorporate findings from immunization coverage research into policy are squandered. The ineffectiveness of inappropriate interventions based on biased evidence can discourage and mislead policymakers to make radical decisions by discretion. This may explain why low- and middle-income countries are unable to vaccinate 80% of their children; it also poses a global health risk to capable countries. The current guidelines and information on MOI and immunization defaulting appear insufficient, and a little clarification would help immunisation forerunners achieve measurable progress in ensuring good coverage, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. The purpose of this paper is to provide appropriate recommendations to address this issue in immunization practice. Optimistically, this will stimulate further discussions, streamline differences, and gear global immunization governance on the subject to achieve the target coverage in low- and middle-income countries by 2030.